Most likely TANK theory I've heard thus far...

[KDIGGZ]

 

If they are 2-6 after 8 games I will want them to stop pretending the season is recoverable.

that happened one year, i forgot which, and then we won a bunch of games in a row and then we were IN THE MIX so we couldn't tank and then we ended up like 7-9. and the cycle repeats itself over and over again. always picking mid first rounders. too late to get the sure thing franchise QB's and too early to take a shot on one of the longshots that sometimes pan out. in 2013 we HAD to get a QB so we got EJ with a mid 1st round pick even though he was at best a 3rd round talent. the year before the first QB was Andrew Luck.

[mannc]

 

Can't see them throwing in the towel at mid-season. Giving a young guy a shot in the last couple of games is more of the norm if a team is no longer "in the hunt".

True. But if they start 2-8...all bets are off.

[Iron Maiden]

The Jets , Cleveland and SF all have a better shot at a top 3 pick in the next draft...the Bills would have to intentionally be bad to be in the discussion...i just don't see it....

[oldmanfan]

and are a lower caliber player than Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck imo. those guys were complete luck. Manning and Luck were sure things. we are only going to win 6 games this year. what's the difference between winning 3 and winning 6 if it gets you one of the 2 best QB's in the draft?

The difference is three wins. The concept of tanking is absurd and should just be eliminated from the board. Players play to earn big contracts. Coaches and GMs want their teams to do the best they can to keep their jobs. The idea that there is some rationale to doing so because you'll get a sure fire QB or whatever is disproven by decades of data showing that there are very few sure fire picks in a draft. Guys like Elway and Manning come along rarely. Luck is used as an example, but the Colts have not won with him primarily because they have not put a team around him, giving the lie to the idea that a QB can win on his own (not having a team around him is why Luck had to have surgery and hasn't picked up a football in the offseason). Even Elway failed till Davis came along.

 

Go out there and compete.

[PolishDave]

I'd hate to see it, but the fact is, a thorough tanking SHOULD put us in BUSINESS by say, 2019-2020..

 

That, of course is assuming we do it for a franchise talent at QB... DT looks like the next big issue.... Dareus can't be counted on 100% due to off-the -field crap, and KW is reeling in the years.... If you tank good, and proper this season, you can fill this roster with 1st-2nd round talent... I don't like it a whole lot, but it sounds like a good business decision..

 

Really?

 

How many extra 1st and second round draft picks do you get for tanking compared to if you don't tank?

 

You aren't filling the roster with 1st and second round picks if you tank this year. Completely illogical reasoning dude.

[Marty McFly]

What a bunch of crap. Anyone that thinks the Bills are going to tank is a complete ****

If this team did that the fans would want to fire the coach.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

 

Right. Tanking adds to the loser mentality were trying to get rid of. Its NOT going to happen under McDermy.

 

 

It's a rebuild, but the team is too talented to tank.

They're still doing a good job of collecting future assets, though. Those two firsts next year will be special.

 

This. Top talent like Shady and K Will would be out the door if the plan was to tank and the team knows a lot more than we do.

 

Acquiring draft picks and getting rid of old, overpaid veterans to retain salary cap flexibility....I guess the Patriots have been tanking for 15 years.

 

Pats consistently in the playoffs and SB. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM TANK.

 

This is BS. No team has ever gone from cellar dweller to Super Bowl winner in a single season for the very simple reason that if a team jettisons its talent in order to tank, it will take years to rebuild it. That's especially true in the present NFL.

 

Use your head for something besides keeping your ears apart. A football team needs 53 players, not just a QB. A Super Bowl team needs real talent at numerous key positions and a lot of luck. There are only 7 rounds in the draft. About half of draft picks bust or fail to live up to expectations. The average career length for NFL players is just over 3 years IIRC, although that number was from a few years ago, so it may be a little longer. Then there's injuries and suspensions for rules violations. The salary cap imposes a limit on how much a team can spend in salaries in any given season. Rookie contracts for first rounders last for 5 years and for others only 4 years. Too many veteran players are not going to want to sign with a losing team if they can sign with a team with a realistic chance to make the Super Bowl -- and a team with recent playoff runs and repeated Super Bowl appearances constitutes a "realistic chance" as opposed to a team that went 0-16 the previous year, which is why Chris Hogan, Stephon Gilmore, and Mike Gillisless are all Patriots. Oh, and let's not forget the quality of scouting, drafting, and coaching.

 

Moreover, there's no guarantee that there's a franchise QB in any draft. In 2002, neither David Carr nor Joey Harrington were any good. In 2007, 2010, and 2013 none of the QBs were better than backups. In 2006, Jay Cutler was the best of a poor lot, although some considered him a franchise QB for a while.

 

Also remember:

 

• In the 2001 draft, Michael Vick was the #1 pick, but Drew Brees was the best QB, first pick in the 2nd round (or what would be the end of the first round today).
• In the 2004 draft, #1 pick Eli Manning was drafted and then traded to the Giants for #4 pick Phillip Rivers and a carload of draft picks. E Manning has won 2 Super Bowls with the Giants but since Rivers has only been there as a spectator, it's unlikely the streaky Manning would have done better.
• In the 2005 draft, while Alex Smith was the #1 pick, Aaron Rodgers was the best QB at #18.
• In the 2008 draft, Atlanta took Matt Ryan at #3 and Baltimore took Joe Flacco (who was Super Bowl MVP) at #18.
• Despite all the hoopla about Indy tanking to get Andrew Luck in 2012, the best QB to come out of the 2012 draft was third rounder Russell Wilson who has already won a Super Bowl. Luck has not matured significantly beyond what he was as a rookie/sophomore QB, and he might not be as good a QB today as Tannehill (#12) and Kirk Cousins (4th round) who have matured professionally.

The Bills have been bad for nearly 20 years because the FO has been far more interested in making profit than in winning football games, and no QB is going to rescue the team from that reality.

That was an awesome comment newbie. Kudos from the ghettos of NJ.

[Wayne Cubed]

that happened one year, i forgot which, and then we won a bunch of games in a row and then we were IN THE MIX so we couldn't tank and then we ended up like 7-9. and the cycle repeats itself over and over again. always picking mid first rounders. too late to get the sure thing franchise QB's and too early to take a shot on one of the longshots that sometimes pan out. in 2013 we HAD to get a QB so we got EJ with a mid 1st round pick even though he was at best a 3rd round talent. the year before the first QB was Andrew Luck.

 

Here's my problem with tanking and why it doesn't necessarily work. Teams completely gut the talent. Did the Colts get Luck? Sure they did but they also completely gutted themselves of talent overall to do that. The team was a mess, no OL, no defense and it's now catching up to them. Tom Brady and the Patriots are such a unique example of what getting an elite QB can do. He is one of the best to play the game and the way the Patriots play, they can afford not to have crazy talent everywhere. But look at Manning in Indy, they won 1 SB. Look at Brees in New Orleans. Look at Matt Ryan in Atlanta.

 

The Jets are apparently tanking and in the process making it a horrible situation for a QB to come into, unless he's the next coming of Tom Brady and doesn't need talent around him. Look at their offense and the weapons they have on the roster currently.

[Jauronimo]

 

 

Right. Tanking adds to the loser mentality were trying to get rid of. Its NOT going to happen under McDermy.

 

 

 

 

This. Top talent like Shady and K Will would be out the door if the plan was to tank and the team knows a lot more than we do.

 

 

 

Pats consistently in the playoffs and SB. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THEM TANK.

 

 

That was an awesome comment newbie. Kudos from the ghettos of NJ.

What do you call the 90s?

[Marty McFly]

What do you call the 90s?

A bad team but my point was they didnt tank for one season for a specific qb that led them to the promise land. They were terrible for years built a good defense and hit the lotto on a 6th round QB which is the anti thesis of tanking for a QB

[Guest NeckBeard]

What do you call the 90s?

 

Tanking is the purposeful act of losing in hopes of getting a new foundation via the draft so that you end up getting better, right? You make it sound like the Pats did it on purpose in the late 1980s and early part of the 90s. That team and organization were literally that much of a mess back then, and lost on their own. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there an angle to move them to St. Louis for a bit on top of it all? I see a bad team -- a really, really bad team -- back then, but not one who had been trying to lose.

[ChanOverChin]

I don't think the Bills are setting themselves up to tank this year. If they were they would NOT have resigned T. Taylor and would have instead planned to start rookie QB N. Peterman (which is pretty much what the Jets are planning to do in addition to releasing many of their better, proven, vet players).

 

Remember, McD is a rookie HC who knows that he needs to prove himself as an NFL HC. If he doesn't show that he can handle himself well against other NFL HCs he could be gone. Thus, I think the Bills (Beane and McD) are planning to try to win with what they have, fill in a few gaps, but not go all the way because they have their eyes on the future.

 

However, if things go south early (say they start out 1-7 for example) I could see them replacing Taylor with Peterman to give Peterman some experience and show what he can do. The tank would be in full swing in that case because Peterman, who may have a bright future, is probably not going to be ready to start full time this year.

[dpberr]

The Bleacher Report "article" ignores the financial fact that the Buffalo Bills "business" can not afford the deliberate tanking of a season.

 

He's looking at it strictly from a football perspective and not taking into consideration the finances of the business as a whole.

 

Even with a string of decent 7-9 and 8-8 seasons, the Bills are way way way down in league revenue, not to mention profit. A tank season more than likely lowers revenue even more, and requires more investment from the owners, a significant rise in ticket prices or cutback in non-football related expenditures. Or all three.

 

What's the first rule of being wealthy? Always spend somebody else's money first.

Edited June 26, 2017 by dpberr

[BuffaloHokie13]

that happened one year, i forgot which, and then we won a bunch of games in a row and then we were IN THE MIX so we couldn't tank and then we ended up like 7-9. and the cycle repeats itself over and over again. always picking mid first rounders. too late to get the sure thing franchise QB's and too early to take a shot on one of the longshots that sometimes pan out. in 2013 we HAD to get a QB so we got EJ with a mid 1st round pick even though he was at best a 3rd round talent. the year before the first QB was Andrew Luck.

I know it's not us, but just 2 years ago KC was 1-5 through 6 games and finished 11-5 with a wildcard spot.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I know it's not us, but just 2 years ago KC was 1-5 through 6 games and finished 11-5 with a wildcard spot.

Week 10 against the Bills w/ a 2nd half collapse because they stopped passing to Sammy.

 

That game put KC in a lock for the 5th seed. A place the Bills should have had if they simply won that game.

[dulles]

You don't think Darnold is worth it? Bills fans would sell their souls to Satan himself for the chance to wear a Darnold jersey on Sundays for the next 10 to 15 years.

Well, Buffalo fans have already proven they'll wear a Satan jersey...

http://thehockeyjersey.co/store/images/large/0914-satan_LRG.jpg

We're already on a slippery slope... Might as well go for it. 0-for Darnold

[#34fan]

True. But if they start 2-8...all bets are off.

 

2-6... Get your tank-on early and you don't need to worry about draft position... What would be the odds of us winning the next 8 games? The Pats will likely be at the top of the division, and the fish COULD win 11 games this year....

 

I truly love this team. However, we need a clear way forward.

 

 

Here's my problem with tanking and why it doesn't necessarily work. Teams completely gut the talent. Did the Colts get Luck? Sure they did but they also completely gutted themselves of talent overall to do that. The team was a mess, no OL, no defense and it's now catching up to them. Tom Brady and the Patriots are such a unique example of what getting an elite QB can do. He is one of the best to play the game and the way the Patriots play, they can afford not to have crazy talent everywhere. But look at Manning in Indy, they won 1 SB. Look at Brees in New Orleans. Look at Matt Ryan in Atlanta.

 

The Jets are apparently tanking and in the process making it a horrible situation for a QB to come into, unless he's the next coming of Tom Brady and doesn't need talent around him. Look at their offense and the weapons they have on the roster currently.

 

Didn't the colts have back-to back 11-win seasons after drafting Luck?... So what, they're in a slump right now... That's not 17 years!... -I'll take that deal any day of the week.

 

 

To directly refute the point, Derek Carr and Russell Wilson were drafted in the 2nd and 3rd round respectively.

 

Still relatively high picks... You could parlay one of your 3 1st rounders into as many as you can negotiate.

 

 

Really?

 

How many extra 1st and second round draft picks do you get for tanking compared to if you don't tank?

 

You aren't filling the roster with 1st and second round picks if you tank this year. Completely illogical reasoning dude.

 

We already have 2... I wouldn't mind a third... Please explain the problem you'd have with that, Dave.

Edited June 26, 2017 by #34fan

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

I don't look at us as a tanking team. We're returning much of a 7-9 team from a year ago, that lost a couple tight games to playoff bound teams in Miami and Seattle. We were without our top WR most of the season, and a ton of other people missed time (safeties, shady missed a game or two, woods). Our franchise DT missed 4 games with suspension, as well as several more due to injury. Our 1st round pick missed camp and barely played, and our 2nd round pick didn't play a down.

 

How are we significantly worse than we were a year ago under our idiotic previous HC?

Edited June 26, 2017 by dneveu

[#34fan]

I don't look at us as a tanking team. We're returning much of a 7-9 team from a year ago, that lost a couple tight games to playoff bound teams in Miami and Seattle. We were without our top WR most of the season, and a ton of other people missed time (safeties, shady missed a game or two, woods). Our franchise DT missed 4 games with suspension, as well as several more due to injury. Our 1st round pick missed camp and barely played, and our 2nd round pick didn't play a down.

 

How are we significantly worse than we were a year ago under our idiotic previous HC?

 

I'm not so sure we've replaced the production of Zach and Robert with the new hires... If Sammy gets a major foot-ache week 2? Is it all on Zay as a rookie?

 

Admit it, if #14 goes out for an extended amount of time, we'd be looking at having to draft a new #1 WR... A strategic reduction in output could facilitate that endeavor...

[Wayne Cubed]

Didn't the colts have back-to back 11-win seasons after drafting Luck?... So what, they're in a slump right now... That's not 17 years!... -I'll take that deal any day of the week.

 

Actually it was 3 11-win seasons, in a weak AFC South. I mean in that 3 year stretch they went 16-2 against there own division. Ultimately, they got smacked around by New England in the playoffs. I think what you mean to say is, you'll take a deal where the Bills could play in a weak AFC South.

 

Of course the other teams in the AFC South, like the Titans and Texans, have had an influx of talent and the Colts are no longer able to run away with the division.

[Doc]

There absolutely is a formula there. Hard to re-create? If you want to re-create 100% of it, yeah, it's impossible, same as re-creating any formula 100%. But getting a good QB and a good coach are reproducible. Not easily but it can be done.

 

And here are other bits we could and absolutely without question should re-create.

 

Particularly their way of consistently acquiring more draft picks. They've then done many things with those picks, including trading them for established players at a time when their QB is approaching an age where every year could possibly be his last even though he doesn't think so.

 

But that's the Pats, acquire picks. Do it with comp picks, do it with trading down but acquire picks.

 

And don't be irresponsible about the salary cap. Spend money carefully on an extremely consistent basis.

 

Again the Cheaters drafted Brady in the 6th round and took a flyer on a coach who was a flame-out in his first go-around as a HC. There was no real blueprint there and they got incredibly lucky.

 

But yes the usual formula is to get a good QB and HC. Far easier said than done.

 

If all they'd acquired was Myles Garrett, maybe no.

 

But instead they've also got two 1sts and three 2nds in next year's draft. That answer about whether what they've done is worth it is getting more and more likely to be a resounding yes in the not so terribly distant future.

 

 

Zach Brown, Woods and Robey-Coleman for three are losses on top of Gilmore. We don't have any LBs athletic enough to replace Zach, rookie WRs often take a long time to get going. We're going to have to prove our ability to replace Gillislee as well.

 

Those replacements have a long way to go to prove that they're equal. And we dropped a bunch of depth as well, DL depth, and a bunch of other spots.

 

Not that this shows we're tanking. We're clearly not when we're bringing back Tyrod and Kyle Williams. But our salary cap problems have constrained us seriously. We look weaker in a number of areas this year.

 

Regarding the Browns, it depends on whether they can improve their drafting. They've been picking very high for years with little to show for it.

 

As for Brown, Woods, and NRC, they're being replaced by equally-talented players who have proven themselves as much as they guys they're replacing have. Again my biggest concern is how will White replace Gilmore.